Aerial Firefighter Relief Act of 2007

Mr. President, today I will reintroduce a bill to repair and strengthen the presidential public financing system. Bipartisan support is a key element of successful campaign finance reform efforts, and I am therefore delighted that the junior Senator from Maine, Sen. Collins, has agreed to be the principal cosponsor of the bill.

The Presidential Funding Act of 2007 will ensure that this system will continue to fulfill its promise in the 21st century. The bill will take effect in January 2009, so it will first apply in the 2012 presidential election.

The presidential public financing system was put into place in the wake of the Watergate scandals as part of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. It was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo. The system, of course, is voluntary, as the Supreme Court required in Buckley. Every major party nominee for President since 1976 has participated in the system for the general election and, prior to 2000, every major party nominee had participated in the system for the primary election as well.

In the 2004 election, President Bush and two Democratic candidates, Howard Dean and the eventual nominee John Kerry, opted out of the system for the presidential primaries. President Bush and Senator Kerry elected to take the taxpayer-funded grant in the general election. President Bush also opted out of the system for the Republican primaries in 2000 but accepted the general election grant. Several of the leading candidates for President in the 2008 election are not participating in the primary system, and it remains to be seen whether either major party candidate will accept public funds in the general election.

It is unfortunate that the matching funds system for the primaries has become less practicable. The system protects the integrity of the electoral process by allowing candidates to run viable campaigns without becoming overly dependent on private donors. The system has worked well in the past, and it is worth repairing so that it can work in the future. If we don't repair it, the pressures on candidates to opt out will increase until the system collapses from disuse.

This bill makes changes to both the primary and general election public financing system to address the weaknesses and problems that have been identified by participants in the system, experts on the presidential election financing process, and an electorate that is increasingly dismayed by the influence of money in politics. First and most important, it eliminates the state-by-state primary spending limits in the current law and substantially increases the overall primary spending limit from the current

limit of approximately $45 million to $150 million, of which up to $100 million can be spent before April 1 of the election year. This should make the system much more viable for serious candidates facing opponents who are capable of raising significant sums outside the system. The bill also makes available substantially more public money for participating candidates by increasing the match of small contributions from 1:1 to 4:1.

One very important provision of this bill ties the primary and general election systems together and requires candidates to make a single decision on whether to participate. Candidates who opt out of the primary system and decide to rely solely on private money cannot return to the system for the general election. Candidates must commit to participate in the system in the general election if they want to receive Federal matching funds in the primaries. The bill also increases the spending limits for participating candidates in the primaries who face a nonparticipating opponent if that opponent raises more than 20 percent more than the spending limit. This provides some protection against being far outspent by a nonparticipating opponent. Additional grants of public money are also available to participating candidates who face a nonparticipating candidate spending substantially more than the spending limit.

The bill also sets the general election spending limit at $100 million, indexed for inflation. If a general election candidate does not participate in the system and spends more than 20 percent more than the combined primary and general election spending limits, a participating opposing candidate will receive a grant equal to twice the general election spending limit.

This bill also addresses what some have called the ``gap'' between the primary and general election seasons. Presumptive presidential nominees have emerged earlier in the election year over the life of the public financing system. This has led to some nominees being essentially out of money between the time that they nail down the nomination and the convention where they are formally nominated and become eligible for the general election grant. For a few cycles, soft money raised by the parties filled in that gap, but the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 fortunately has now closed that loophole. This bill allows candidates who are still in the primary race as of April 1 to spend an additional $50 million until funds for the general election are made available. In addition, the bill allows the political parties to spend up to $25 million between April 1 and the date that a candidate is nominated and an additional $25 million after the nomination. The total amount of $50 million is over three times the amount allowed under current law. This should allow the ``gap'' to be more than adequately filled.

Obviously, these changes make this a more generous system. So the bill also makes the requirement for qualifying more difficult. To be eligible for matching funds, a candidate must raise $25,000 in matchable contributions--up to $200 for each donor--in at least 20 States. That is five times the threshold under current law.

The bill also makes a number of changes in the system to reflect the changes in our presidential races over the past several decades. For one thing, it makes matching funds available starting 6 months before the date of the first primary or caucus, that's approximately 6 months earlier than is currently the case. For another, it sets a single date for release of the public grants for the general election--the Friday before Labor Day. This addresses an inequity in the current system, under which the general election grants are released after each nominating convention, which can be several weeks apart.

The bill also prohibits Federal elected officials and candidates from soliciting soft money for use in funding the party conventions and requires presidential candidates to disclose bundled contributions. The bundling provision builds on a provision contained in ethics and lobbying reform bill enacted earlier this year. It requires presidential candidates to disclose all bundlers of $50,000 or more.

The purpose of this bill is to improve the campaign finance system, not to advance one party's interests. In fact, this is an excellent time to make changes in the Presidential public funding system. The 2008 presidential campaign, which is already underway, will undoubtedly be the most expensive in history. A number of candidates from both parties have opted out of the primary matching funds system, and some experts predict that one or both major party nominees will even refuse public grants for the general election period. It is too late to make the changes needed to repair the system for the 2008 election. But if we act now, we can make sure that an updated and revised system is in place for the 2012 election. If we act now, I am certain that the 2008 campaign cycle will confirm our foresight. If we do nothing, 2008 will continue and accelerate the slide of the current system into irrelevancy.

Fixing the presidential public financing system will cost money, but our best calculations at the present time indicate that the changes to the system in this bill can be paid for by raising the income tax check-off on an individual return from $3 to just $10. The total cost of the changes to the system, based on data from the 2004 elections, is projected to be around $365 million over the 4-year election cycle. To offset that increased cost, this bill first amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to allow the Bureau of Land Management to implement new user fees for processing oil and gas permits. It also amends the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to increase the yearly maintenance fee and one-time location fee for holders of more than 10 mining claims on federal land to $150 and $50 per claim, respectively, and imposes a 4 percent royalty on the gross income from mining on existing claims. Finally, it amends the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 to use a state's fee formula to establish the grazing fees for federal land in that state.

Though the numbers are large, this is actually a very small investment to make to protect our democracy and preserve the integrity of our presidential elections. The American people do not want to see a return to the pre-Watergate days of unlimited spending on presidential elections and candidates entirely beholden to private donors. We must act to ensure the fairness of our elections and the confidence of our citizens in the process by repairing the cornerstone of the Watergate reforms.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, credit card debt is hitting American families like a wrecking ball, with our families already being hammered by skyrocketing fuel prices and the subprime mortgage mess. We have seen credit card debt go up almost 25 percent in the last 3 years. I have brought to the floor a typical credit card agreement

that millions of our citizens enter into. It is 44 pages long. You can't see it from the chair, but it goes on and on and on with small print. It is very obvious to me that buried in all of this legalese, buried in all of this technical jargon, is a variety of sneaky terms that end up hurting consumers because it is not possible to understand what is in much of the key provisions of these agreements. For example, we understand folks in New Jersey, Oregon, or anywhere else pay a lot of attention to the interest rate provision. They pay a lot of attention to the annual fee provision. But they don't notice a lot of the little disclosures that end up hidden in the legalese that can end up making the real cost of credit significantly higher.

Last week, I met with students across the State of Oregon. A lot of them, with the financial aid cutbacks, are now walking on an economic tightrope. They balance their food bills against their fuel bills and their fuel bills against their housing costs. They are on an economic tightrope. They are getting buried in credit card debt. Very often they find, for example, that if they have a credit card, and they are late on another payment with someone else, their credit card interest rate ends up going up as a result. There may be a small provision in their existing credit card agreement that allows it, but nobody, for the most part, knows about it.

Students would say their interest rates would double almost overnight with virtually no notice. They would not be given any clear communication about what is going on. They would just find their costs would arbitrarily skyrocket, and they would again be unable to pay their bills.

Now, I recognize in a free society folks have a constitutional right to be foolish, to rack up charges that would not be wise, but they can do so anyway in a free society. I do not think most people will do that, certainly not the students I met with in Oregon last week, if it is possible to understand the terms of these credit cards in straightforward, plain and simple English rather than see the key provisions buried in all kinds of legalese that you would have to be a wizard to sort out.

So I am proposing today, with the support of our colleague, Senator Obama from Illinois, that the Federal Reserve, which has great expertise in this area, set up a safety rating system for credit cards--not one that evaluates credit card companies on provisions that are appropriately evaluated in the marketplace, but on safety matters-- for example, whether a credit card company gives the consumer adequate notice before they change terms; whether, for example, they highlight the key kinds of changes rather than bury them in the small print.

I think the Federal Reserve, with the technical expertise they have and the independent judgment they bring to these financial questions, is the ideal place to develop and operate a safety rating system. Such a system has worked quite well for new cars. When you have a rating system for cars, people can understand how they would be protected in a crash. The legislation I am offering will tell people whether credit card companies are treating them fairly and disclosing the key provisions so that a free market can work.

So under the rating system I propose today with Senator Obama, it would be required for credit card companies to put on the card itself, put on the various promotional materials they are using, stars which, in effect, would be granted on the basis of the Federal Reserve's independent judgment as to whether the key safety criteria are being met.

I am very hopeful that at a time when our citizens are being pounded by powerful economic forces, particularly in the energy and housing field, there could at least be bipartisan agreement that the Senate could support transparency, disclosure, changes in the credit card business, so our consumers--and millions are using these credit cards during this holiday season--can understand the agreements they are getting into.

The students I met with last week are taking steps now to better police what is going on in the credit card field. On several campuses in Oregon, they have moved the credit card companies off campus. Yet the credit card companies continue to flood the students with promotional material.

I was told, for example, about one program where students were brought into a room where money was essentially floating in the air, where it was as if you would be going to a financial paradise if you just signed up for one of these credit card agreements.

I am not proposing heavy-handed regulation. I am not proposing one- size-fits-all government. I am proposing that an agency with the expertise to make sure there is disclosure, that the forms and agreements are printed in simple English--that that kind of information be rewarded in the marketplace. If companies are not willing to do it, the American people could find that out as well.

That is the kind of simple, straightforward approach--with disclosure, transparency, in simple English--that makes sense for the digital age. With the Federal Reserve completing that first safety rating, all Americans could get that kind of information quickly and conveniently. That is what is in the interest of the American people with respect to this credit card debt issue at a critical time.

I hope my colleagues will support the legislation I introduce today with Senator Obama.

Mr. President. I rise to join my friend from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, in introducing the Presidential Funding Act of 2007.

It was 100 years ago that the reformer President Theodore Roosevelt proposed ``a very radical measure'' in his State of the Union message to Congress. He envisioned a system of campaign financing that would include a congressional appropriation to support national campaigns so that, as he said, ``The need for collecting large campaign funds would vanish.''

When the campaign financing reforms of the 1970s were enacted, it was hoped that we would draw closer to achieving Theodore Roosevelt's goal of funding the pursuit of our highest public office largely from public rather than private funds.

Our Presidential-campaign finance system still suffers from serious defects, however, and current events are dramatically highlighting the need for continued reform and improvement.

The current Presidential campaign is already shaping up as the most expensive election in history by far. Candidate after candidate has chosen to forego public funds due to fundamental flaws in the system. Fund-raising tallies have already shattered records. If a candidate decides to seek public funding, he or she risks running out of funds to counter candidates who can attract large amounts of private contributions.

Current estimates are that the 2008 contest for the Presidency of the U.S. will cost more than $1 billion. Much of that cost will be incurred in delivering messages to the electorate through advertising and publications of all sorts.

One billion dollars is a huge sum. Yet we cannot expect modern campaigns to be run on budgets that might have sufficed for William McKinley, whose successful 1896 campaign relied heavily on speeches from his front porch in Canton, Ohio, to admirers who came by train to hear him. This idyllic but limited approach to campaigning is long gone.

Unless we wish to return to the cronyism, influence peddling, and restricted suffrage of the 19th century, large expenditures on broadcasting and other media are essential for any campaign that hopes to prevail. That financial fact obliges candidates to spend a great deal of time appearing at exclusive, big-ticket fundraisers.

To allow candidates to spend less time raising money, Congress established a system of public funding for Presidential campaigns that started with the 1976 Presidential election. That system has not been substantially changed since 1984, and its limitations have only become more evident with time.

The central problem is that the system does not provide enough public funds to permit a credible contest against well-bankrolled candidates who have opted out of the public-financing system.

In November 2003, Governor Dean announced that he would opt out of public financing, saying ``floods of special-interest money have forced us to abandon a broken system.'' Senator Kerry also felt obliged to opt out so that he could lend his campaign $6 million rather than be restricted to the use of $50,000 in personal funds.

Citing Senator Dole's campaign in 1996, Senator McCain's campaign in 2000, and Senator Edwards's campaign in 2004, the League of Women Voters has spoken of the public system's ``devil's bargain'' for candidates: ``To get matching funds, they have to accept a spending limit that will leave them bankrupt if the contest continues into March. . . . With the underdogs boxed in by the limits, the frontrunners, and others who can afford it, have additional incentive to opt out.''

The bill we introduce today would make a number of important changes.

The key provisions of the Presidential Funding Act of 2007 would increase the public match for primary-season contributions, make funds available earlier in the contest, tie the availability of public funding during the general-election campaign to a candidate's using it during the primary season, provide additional funds if a non-publicly funded opponent spends heavily, and update spending limits to more realistic levels.

All of these steps represent sensible and useful improvements in the campaign-finance system.

I recognize that some of our colleagues and some members of the public are wary of taxpayer-supported funding for Presidential candidates. I can only respond that the alternative--a complete reliance on private contributions--is worse.

I would also reassure doubters that this bill is no giveaway or an inducement to fringe candidates of narrow appeal. Its provisions are predicated upon matches for individual contributions, not absolute grants, and it requires achieving significant levels of individual contributions in at least 20 States.

We all understand that the current system of public funding for campaigns has defects. The growing inclination of candidates to opt out of the system underscores that fact. The Presidential Funding Act of 2007 would cure some serious problems and help restore the appeal of public funding.

If enacted, this bill would take effect in January 2009. By moving toward virtually full realization of Theodore Roosevelt's ``very radical measure,'' we can take a big step toward making the financing, the conduct, and the outcome of the 2012 presidential campaign a genuine source of pride for American citizens of all political affiliations.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the EAT SAFE Act of 2007. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague on the Agriculture Committee, Senator Grassley, to introduce this important piece of food safety legislation.

As we have all seen this past year, in the wake of massive recalls of pet food manufactured using contaminated Chinese gluten and consumer warnings about the safety of various imported food products, ensuring the safety of food products and food ingredients being brought into this country from other nations has taken on a greater urgency.

A report issued in September by the President's Interagency Working Group on Import Safety acknowledged that ``aspects of our present import system must be strengthened to promote security, safety, and trade for the benefit of American consumers.'' The EAT SAFE Act that we are introducing today is designed to address one of those critical aspects of the food and agricultural import system that, in the face of the mounting imported food safety crisis, has received little public focus. That issue is food and other agricultural products that are being smuggled into the U.S.

When many people think of food smuggling, they likely think of it as something that occurs when travelers attempt to bring small amounts of foreign food or agricultural products into the U.S. by concealing it in their vehicles, luggage, or other personal affects. While this type of smuggling is unquestionably a problem that U.S. authorities must and do address, the larger threat of smuggled food and agricultural products comes from the companies, importers, and individuals who circumvent U.S. inspection requirements or restrictions on imports of certain products from a particular country.

The ways in which these companies, importers, and individuals circumvent the system can happen in any number of ways. Many times smuggled products are intentionally mislabeled and bear the identification of a product that can legally enter the country. Other times, smuggled products gain import entry through falsifying the products' countries of origin. And, many times, products that have previously been denied entry are later ``shopped around,'' that is, presented to another U.S. port of entry in the effort to gain importation undetected.

Just some examples of prohibited products discovered in commerce in the United States in recent years include duck parts from Vietnam and poultry products from China, both nations with confirmed human cases of avian influenza; unpasteurized raw cheeses from Mexico containing a bacterium that causes tuberculosis; strawberries from Mexico contaminated with hepatitis A; and mislabeled puffer fish from China containing a potentially deadly toxin. These smuggled food and agriculture products present safety risks to our food, plants, and animals, and pose a threat to our Nation's health, economy, and security.

The EAT SAFE Act addresses these serious risks by applying commonsense measures to protect our food and agricultural supply. This legislation authorizes funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration to bolster their efforts by hiring additional personnel to detect and track smuggled products. It also authorizes funding to provide food safety cross training for Homeland Security Agricultural Specialists and agricultural cross training for Customs' Border Patrol Agents to ensure that those men and women working on the front lines are knowledgeable about these serious food and agricultural threats.

In addition to focusing on increased personal and training, the EAT SAFE Act also seeks to increase importer accountability. The legislation requires private laboratories conducting tests on FDA- regulated products on behalf of importers to apply for and be certified by FDA. It also imposes civil penalties for laboratories or importers who knowingly or conspire to falsify imported product laboratory sampling and for importers who circumvent the USDA import reinspection system.

Finally, the EAT SAFE Act will also ensure increased public awareness of smuggled products, as well as recalled food products, by requiring the USDA and FDA to provide this information to the public in a timely and easily searchable manner.

These commonsense measures are an important first step towards safeguarding Americans' food and agricultural supply and ensuring our Nation's health, economy, and security.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Enzi's Aerial Firefighter Relief Act of 2007.

On August 27, 2001, a California pilot named Larry Groff took off from Ukiah in State Air Tanker 87, doing what he loved, flying and fighting fires.

Like thousands of contract firefighters hired by the Government, he figured that if anything ever happened to him, his family would be taken care of. But that day, while maneuvering above a north coast fire started by a couple of Hells Angels who had blown up their methamphetamine lab, Larry Groff died in a midair collision.

Faced with the prospect of raising their 6 children alone, his widow, Christine Wells-Groff, filed a claim under the Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program. This PSOB Program provides a lump-sum payoff to survivors of any ``public safety officer,'' a term which can include not only actual government employees but also any volunteer or any person acting in a ``similar relationship of performing services as part of a public agency.''

At the time of his death, Larry Groff had been flying a State- operated air tanker. He was wearing a California Department of Forestry uniform. And after his death, the California agency for which he had worked issued an opinion stating that he was an officially recognized member of that agency. But he was also a contract employee.

Because of that, Ms. Wells-Groff's PSOB claim was initially denied by the Bureau of Justice Affairs, based on its opinion that contract employees cannot qualify for PSOB benefits. Ms. Wells-Groff then appealed, and she later convinced a trial court that despite being a contract employee, her husband had held a ``similar relationship of performing services as part of a public agency,'' thereby qualifying him as a ``public safety officer'' entitled to PSOB benefits.

Unfortunately, on July 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed that decision. The appellate court agreed that Mr. Groff's facts might fall within the applicable regulation's key definition of a ``similar relationship'' but it said that the question of whether he had met this standard was not entirely clear and that it would defer to the Government's narrow interpretation of that language, absent further clarification from Congress.

Following this decision, Ms. Wells-Groff petitioned the Supreme Court to take her case. However, it is unclear if the Court will hear the case, let alone decide in her favor. So today, I want to go on record to support the policy that these contract employees should be entitled to the same PSOB benefits as other injured firefighters and volunteers.

The bill that Senator Enzi is introducing and that I am pleased to cosponsor will make it clear that survivors of aerial firefighters like Larry Groff who make the ultimate sacrifice should qualify for PSOB benefits. In addition, this legislation will clarify that the district court was right in the Wells-Groff case. Brave firefighters like Larry Groff, who regularly put their lives on the line in officially sanctioned aerial firefighting activities to protect us, do this country a great service.

This bill will clarify that when actually up in the air carrying out official firefighting missions, contract employees will be deemed to hold a ``similar relationship of performing services as part of a public agency''--and meet the regulatory standard already in place--so that they are covered by the PSOB laws, and their survivors can receive the benefits they need and deserve.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.